This change seems kind of pointless.  Also, it fails to replace Sun with Water in pending proposals, and .

Sure, it’s just flavour, but it seems like it could take the game down a different route, which some players might want. A game where you have to collect water to plant and nourish your crops is going to be different from a game where you somehow stockpile and spend sunlight.

Unless I’m forgetting something, requiring all proposals to mess around with pending proposals is a potentially bad thing and not how we normally write them, as discussed in the previous version. (Did I miss your point when you said “Proposals like this should really be written edit other proposals in the queue.”, ais523?)

And I just add that I’d like to see proposal referring to the ruleset and to past Proposals, rather than to potential future ones.
And it would also restrict the wording of future proposals…
I mean, what about me making a Core proposal about Sunset? “Sunset is the moment in wich the Water stops being visible from London.”
Now that would be funny.

Kevan: My point is that it shouldn’t break currently pending proposals, not that it should mess with future proposals.  People who write proposals are somewhat responsible for dealing with the currently pending proposals, otherwise there is a risk of proposals constantly being corrected as they are broken by overlapping proposals.

aguydude: Since all proposals are enacted or failed in order, by the time this proposal potentially passes, the pending proposals will have passed or failed so they’ll be affected by it the same as rules currently in the ruleset. The only pending proposals left will have been written after this one.